[OSGeo-Conf] Motion: Vote on revised Conference Committee Process
Venkatesh Raghavan
venka.osgeo at gmail.com
Fri Feb 3 15:44:38 PST 2017
On 2/1/2017 5:15 AM, Vasile Craciunescu wrote:
> +1 Vasile
+1 Venka
Thanks
>
> Thank you, Cameron!
>
> Best,
> Vasile
>
> On 1/29/17 10:00 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>> As per below, could all the conference committee members please vote to
>> approved revised text for conference committee text:
>>
>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>
>>
>>
>> Motion 3: adjusted based on feedback by Cameron Shorter
>>
>>
>> Decisions
>>
>> 1. Anyone may contribute to conference committee discussions. All votes
>> will be noted, but only conference committee member votes count
>> toward decisions.
>> 2. Voting will use convention of:
>> * +1 : For
>> * +0: Mildly for
>> * 0: Indifferent
>> * -0: Mildly against
>> * -1 : Strongly against. This is expected to be accompanied by a
>> reason and alternative proposal.
>> 3. Everyday topics will be decided by an open vote of all members in a
>> clearly designated separate mail thread over a minimum of 2 business
>> days with a minimum participation of 3 votes.
>> 4. For major decisions, such as conference venue selection, a minimum
>> of one week shall be allocated to try and ensure at least 50% voter
>> participation.
>> 5. The committee aims for consensus, and will specifically attempt to
>> address all -1 votes, but will revert to a majority vote where
>> necessary.
>> 6. The result will be clearly declared afterwards.
>> 7. Secret voting, when required, will use an online voting service or
>> use an email to an independent teller appointed by CC Chair.
>>
>>
>> FOSS4G Selection
>>
>> 1. All Letters of Intent and subsequent proposals will be posted to the
>> list for open comment by all.
>> 2. The selection of the winning proposal is by secret vote of
>> conference committee members.
>> 3. The OSGeo Board will be requested to ratify the conference
>> committee’s recommendation.
>> 4. Any committee member who has a potential conflict of interest is
>> expected to withdraw from voting. A member of the committee who is
>> part of a bidding team, intends to become part of the LOC or is
>> employed by a company playing an active part in a bid should exclude
>> themselves from voting in the selection process. In the event of a
>> disagreement regarding a potential conflict of interest the
>> committee chair has the authority to make a decision.
>>
>>
>> Membership
>>
>> 1. To ensure voting control for key decisions remains with experienced
>> people, the committee aims for more than 50% of members to be chairs
>> (or vice chairs) of past FOSS4G global events. The chair of the most
>> recent FOSS4G event will automatically be invited to become a member
>> but still requires a motion and vote.
>> 2. The conference committee aims to retain a chair or vice-chair from
>> the 5 most recent global FOSS4G conferences.
>> 3. The remaining membership, less than 50% of members, is open, ideally
>> attracting chairs or LOC members from past Global or Regional FOSS4G
>> or related conferences.
>> 4. Each year, prior to releasing the Global FOSS4G RfP, the membership
>> list shall be re-visited.
>> 1. Existing members shall be asked whether they wish to continue on
>> the committee. If a member doesn't respond, after a number of
>> attempts to contact them, they shall be retired.
>> 2. Interested people may be suggested, or request to be voted onto
>> the conference committee.
>> 3. If less than 50% of membership would be past global FOSS4G
>> chair/vice chairs, then non global FOSS4G chair/vice chair
>> positions shall be up for re-election.
>> 4. Election of conference committee members is by secret vote by
>> the existing conference committee and board members who are not
>> already members of the conference committee. Voters will vote
>> Yes/No/Abstain for each candidate. Voters may select "Yes" for
>> up to the number of positions available.
>> 5. Votes will be secret either using an online voting system or by
>> email to a designated teller who is not a voter. The mechanism will
>> be selected by the committee chair.
>>
>>
>> Votes for the motion
>>
>> 1. Steven Feldman <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Stevenfeldman>
>> 2. Eli Adam <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:EliL>
>> 3. Peter Batty <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Pmbatty>
>> 4. David Bitner <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Bitner>
>> 5. Maria Brovelli <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Maria>
>> 6. Jachym Cepicky <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Jachym>
>> 7. Vasile Craciunescu <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Vasile>
>> 8. David Fawcett positive words
>> 9. Gavin Fleming <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:GFleming>
>> 10. Darrell Fuhriman
>> 11. Helena Mitasova <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Helena>
>> 12. Claude Philipona
>> 13. Venkatesh Raghavan <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Venkat>
>> 14. Paul Ramsey <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Pwramsey3>
>> 15. Cameron Shorter <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Camerons>
>> 16. Sanghee Shin <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Sanghee>
>> 17. Till Adams <https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Till_Adams>
>> 18. Jeroen Ticheler
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 27/12/2016 1:28 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>> Conference committee,
>>>
>>> Maria, Venka, Steven, Eli and I have revisited the proposed conference
>>> committee processes, addressing previous concerns from Maria and
>>> Venka. After some adjustments, we are all now happy with the text [1].
>>>
>>> Could all please run your eyes over this and comment on whether you
>>> think it is ok, or whether you think there is something extra needing
>>> to be changed.
>>>
>>> Once we have heard from the majority of the committee (preferably
>>> all), and any comments raised have been addressed, I'll start a motion
>>> as a separate email thread to finalise these processes. I'll leave up
>>> to 2 weeks, till 10 Jan for people to comment).
>>>
>>> The changes include:
>>>
>>> * There is no set number of people on the committee, just a
>>> requirement that global FOSS4G chairs/co-chairs make up more than 50%
>>> of the committee.
>>>
>>> * Major decisions will have a minimum of 1 week for people to vote to
>>> try and ensure there is sufficient time for most (if not all)
>>> committee members to vote.
>>>
>>> * A number of other minor tweaks to the text.
>>>
>>> Note: We currently have 11 global foss4g chair/co-chairs on the
>>> conference committee. Based on proposed rules, we have space for 10
>>> more people on the committee (totaling 21). We currently have 16
>>> members [2] listed.
>>>
>>> Jeroen, Helena, you both recently volunteered to step down from the
>>> committee. I'm hopeful that you might reconsider and rejoin.
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee_Policy_Discussions#Motion_3:_adjusted_based_on_feedback_by_Cameron_Shorter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [2] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Conference_Committee#Current_Members
>>
>> On 27/12/2016 1:34 PM, David William Bitner wrote:
>>> +1, I like the compromises!
>>
>> On 28/12/2016 7:45 AM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> That is a good suggestion. I believe the your proposed text should go
>>> into the FOSS4G RFP document [1]. I'm not tackling this document
>>> myself, but happy to see someone else take it on.
>>>
>>> [1] https://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/FOSS4G_2018_Bid_Process#RFP_Documents
>>> (source in subversion)
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28/12/2016 12:28 AM, Michael Terner wrote:
>>>> I would also like to suggest one further minor refinement to item #1
>>>> of "FOSS4G selection" based on the 2017 competition (as the situation
>>>> did not arise with the 2018 competition generating only one
>>>> proposal). We would respectfully suggest that the final Proposals
>>>> _not_ be posted directly to the Conference Dev list by the proposing
>>>> cities, but rather to an intermediary, who would then post them
>>>> publicly after the global deadline has passed. In the 2017
>>>> competition there was a gap of >8 hours between when the first
>>>> proposal was submitted, and the last. And this gap provides the late
>>>> submitters an opportunity to look at the earlier submittals before
>>>> submitting. I don't suggest that anything untoward happened in 2017,
>>>> but the "public posting" process accommodates an opportunity for this
>>>> to happen and is very easily remedied. A simple sentence added to #1
>>>> would cover this: "Final FOSS4G proposals will be emailed by the
>>>> proposing cities to an intermediary, named by Conference Dev, before
>>>> the deadline; and the intermediary will post them publicly the day
>>>> following the deadline."
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with the deliberations and voting...
>>>>
>>>> MT
>>
>> --
>> Cameron Shorter
>> M +61 419 142 254
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Conference_dev mailing list
>> Conference_dev at lists.osgeo.org
>> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/conference_dev
>>
>
>
More information about the Conference_dev
mailing list